Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:


Because for those of us that have regular sex, we're able to see, first hand, the very real differences between the sex organs.

Now I am reminded of those people, you know, who have identifiable genders in terms of normal appearance traits but are born with (and keep) unidentifiable sex organs. Which sex are they and why? Could such a person use either locker room freely at any time depending on their chosen identity? Why/why not?

I think if women want equal rights (Sports announcer woman forcing the teams to let her into the mens lockerooms and whatnot) that it opens the door for this kind of thing. I understand that some people will say that she was 'just doing her job' and while that is true it does force it into the limelight that we talk about being equals, but in most cases do not practice being equals.

I find it rather disturbing that when a man smacks a woman, he gets to go to jail. When a woman smacks a man, he gets to suck it up. It is far from fair and hardly equal. This is going to sound really f'd up but women want men to treat them equal when it suits them, and for men to be chivalrous when it suits them for that as well.

This situation is really an odd one for me to handle to be honest. I do not know how I would react to a woman wanting to use the men's lockeroom. I probably would not give two gaks tbh, except that she could get all cray cray and say that all the guys in there were pervs for flashing her or whatever. I think this woman went about it the wrong way, she should have just left and never returned IMO.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
This is going to sound really f'd up but women want men to treat them equal when it suits them, and for men to be chivalrous when it suits them for that as well.

Some do. No two doubts about that.

Women in general don't, though. Most of us really just want fairness, and that will require pushing in one direction more than the other.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
This is going to sound really f'd up but women want men to treat them equal when it suits them, and for men to be chivalrous when it suits them for that as well.

Some do. No two doubts about that.

Women in general don't, though. Most of us really just want fairness, and that will require pushing in one direction more than the other.

Your version of fairness, you mean.

Oh, this is gonna be good. and what is "Her version of fairness"

Relapse wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
This is going to sound really f'd up but women want men to treat them equal when it suits them, and for men to be chivalrous when it suits them for that as well.

Some do. No two doubts about that.

Women in general don't, though. Most of us really just want fairness, and that will require pushing in one direction more than the other.

Your version of fairness, you mean.

You believe women have more and greater privileges than men currently?

 Ashiraya wrote:
You believe women have more and greater privileges than men currently?

The immediate answer is going to be "family court", and in this one specific venue, he won't be wrong, at least in the US.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
You believe women have more and greater privileges than men currently?

The immediate answer is going to be "family court", and in this one specific venue, he won't be wrong, at least in the US.

And that is still sexism, thinking that women and only women are suited to raising a kid.

Women have some priviliges over men. That is undoubtedly correct.

I strongly question the implication that they are greater and more numerous, however.

Dis gun b guud.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Women have some priviliges over men. That is undoubtedly correct.

I strongly question the implication that they are greater and more numerous, however.

On the whole, I agree with you. I think the gap is narrowing but still present.

Like Ouze said, family court is the one major outlier.

Which is why a lot of father's rights groups have started to pop up.

 cincydooley wrote:
Like Ouze said, family court is the one major outlier.

Which is why a lot of father's rights groups have started to pop up.

Remember when people said it was a surprise the Brittany Spears lost rights to the kids from family court.
My sister had a mother that was messed up, drugs and so forth, and the still rewarded her to the mother because my father worked and she didnt.

You have to feth up BAD to loose your kids as a mother.

We should probably get back to the topic though. There is really no way we can discuss this tangent without it getting ugly, or really long, or probably both.

 Ouze wrote:
We should probably get back to the topic though. There is really no way we can discuss this tangent without it getting ugly, or really long, or probably both.

Agreed. Back to pee-pees and hoohahs.

The thread is already teetering on the verge of being beyond saving...

 Ouze wrote:
The immediate answer is going to be "family court", and in this one specific venue, he won't be wrong, at least in the US.

I should point out that this sense of unfairness can be somewhat misleading. For example, the commonly-cited statistics about women getting custody of children much more often than men are heavily influenced by the large number of cases where the father doesn't seek custody at all. If you instead only look at the cases where the father asks for custody then the chances of getting at least joint custody go up considerably.

Is the person in question pre-op or post-op though? I understand they're expected to undergo a pre-op period of living as the eventual gender, which i'm guessing is what happened here. The problem with assigning a different set of restrooms for transgender people is you just can't lump the transgender males in with the transgender females, you'd end up needing an additional pair of restrooms to cater for them. Transgender rights is a struggle that has gone on since the roman times, i sincerely doubt it will be resolved anytime soon.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
You believe women have more and greater privileges than men currently?

The immediate answer is going to be "family court", and in this one specific venue, he won't be wrong, at least in the US.

Well, when you look at the actual numbers, that kind of isn't the case. At this point it's become one of those things that just gets said so often that everyone just assumes it's true.

 motyak wrote:
The thread is already teetering on the verge of being beyond saving...

To tell the truth, I thought the story a novelty item and didn't think it would generate the amount of response it did.

Relapse wrote:

 motyak wrote:
The thread is already teetering on the verge of being beyond saving...

To tell the truth, I thought the story a novelty item and didn't think it would generate the amount of response it did.

Really? You didn't think a story about transgenders and a person feeling put out by them would prompt a whole mess in the OT forum? You've been here long enough to know better ha

 motyak wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 motyak wrote:
The thread is already teetering on the verge of being beyond saving...

To tell the truth, I thought the story a novelty item and didn't think it would generate the amount of response it did.

Really? You didn't think a story about transgenders and a person feeling put out by them would prompt a whole mess in the OT forum? You've been here long enough to know better ha

Not really. I've seen similar stories fall off the radar in the past, such as the man who had the operation to look like a female super model.

Relapse wrote:

 motyak wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 motyak wrote:
The thread is already teetering on the verge of being beyond saving...

To tell the truth, I thought the story a novelty item and didn't think it would generate the amount of response it did.

Really? You didn't think a story about transgenders and a person feeling put out by them would prompt a whole mess in the OT forum? You've been here long enough to know better ha

Not really. I've seen similar stories fall off the radar in the past, such as the man who had the operation to look like a female super model.

That is not even close to the same level of potential disagree-ness.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Because for those of us that have regular sex, we're able to see, first hand, the very real differences between the sex organs.

And to answer your statement. So? There is a different in function between curly and Straight her, light and dark skin, so why dont we seperate them?
Why doe what someone has between their legs and on their chest honestly matter so much?

Do you seriously expect an answer to that question? That is one of the basic things of human behaviour, it has been that way for all of human history.

 lindsay40k wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You seem to be seeing rapists behind every corner.

Welcome to womanhood.

You need psychological councelling, fast.

http://www.bps.org.uk/bpslegacy/dcp

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
A. The current phycological census is that seeing naked adults with opposite anatomical features can be harmful for the child.

Citation needed. And please remember to pay attention to the difference between "X is inherently harmful" and "X is harmful because we treat it as a shameful thing", as well as the fact that not all societies share the US attitude towards non-sexual nudity and yet still have children that don't suffer from serious psychological damage.

Here you go:

http://www.tcavjohn.com/pdfs/boundries.pdf

Can you please provide a source for your latter statement?

B. Do you have any evidence that transgender people feel insulted by that?

You mean besides the transgender people saying "'bathroom laws' are incredibly stupid and offensive"?

Citation needed.

Also age matters, children generally stop seeing their parents naked at the age of 4-8

Except when their parents bring them into a locker room full of naked people and then take off all of their own clothes? Or did we forget that we're talking about a situation where a parent has already brought their child into a place where naked people are expected?

Taking a look at the pdf above it is true that seeing naked adults is harmful regardless of the gender, but seeing the opposite gender is then again more harmful. These private lockers that some members have mentioned seem like the best solution.

No reason to be aggressive. You make a statement, you provide the evidence.

No, there's a reason to be aggressive, because you clearly didn't even take a few seconds to do a google search for attacks on transgendered people.

What is the reason to become agressive when asked to follow common argumentative ethicet?

Yes, but then it reduces the danger if only people with the same anatomical features are allowed in one changing room.

No it doesn't, because a person who is looking for a victim to abuse is already breaking the law. Do you honestly think that a potential rapist (or whatever other abuser you want to consider) is going to say "well, guess I can't do this, the sign says I'm not allowed in here"? It's a sign, not a magic one-sex force field.

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
A. The current phycological census is that seeing naked adults with opposite anatomical features can be harmful for the child.

Citation needed. And please remember to pay attention to the difference between "X is inherently harmful" and "X is harmful because we treat it as a shameful thing", as well as the fact that not all societies share the US attitude towards non-sexual nudity and yet still have children that don't suffer from serious psychological damage.

Here you go:

http://www.tcavjohn.com/pdfs/boundries.pdf

Can you please provide a source for your latter statement?

Wow. They seriously research something like that? Those people have got some pretty serious issues...
That research sounds so weird on so many levels it made me really laugh. Some of the most hilarious parts:

Approximately 47% of respondents favored intervention in cases in which a mother “often” kissed her 10-year-old son on the lips when leaving for work

(Wut? Kissing is wrong now as well? My mother still kisses me and I am 15...)

giving hugs until 8.6 years of age.

(Parents should not hug their 9 year old child anymore? That is so weird)

A limitation of this study is that the educational level of the respondents is high compared to the general population, and all of the participants are child protective service workers

(Great way to do an unbiased research XD)

Should the mother be sleeping with her 8-year-old son?

(Okay, this one doesn't count but it is really funny when you take it out of context )

I still fail to see how nudity can be harmful. It does become embarrasing in some circumstances (with strangers for example) and after a certain age (when you get into puberty), but this research makes it sound like it is something dangerous.

I think it maybe also depends on culture. For example, when you go to the beach with friends in the Netherlands, everyone has already changed into their swimming pants beforehand and wears their pants on top of it. After swimming they just pull their pants on again on top of their still wet swimming pants
If you go the beach with friends in Slovenia, you just change into your swimming pants on the beach, and replace them with normal pants again after swimming.
I think it is all very confusing.
As for Peregrine's second statement, I would like to invite you to visit Russia (or any Slavic nation for that matter). People in the West are so hilariously prude. I think seeing naked people is not harmful in any way for kids. I saw plenty of naked adults in the banya or on the beach when I was little and it did not harm me. I also know someone who grew up in a nudist family and he is perfectly normal too.

One person worries about kids being raped. People ignore/agree (or accurately point out the flaws with said persons thoughts).

One person worries about being raped, told they desperately need counselling, by men.

Nice.

That article seemed to focus purely on what several people felt appropriate practices to be. These are people whose view will be skewed by their experiences as CPS workers and the like. There was no investigation through fMRI or TMI or anything to see if areas associated with arousal were showing activity when bathing children, kissing them on the mouth or anything of the kind, it was purely based on 'feelings' of professionals whose job, when you get down to it, is to assume the worst.

I disagree with her methodology and believe that, if she were to have put this paper forward as her very first paper, without the weight of her name attached to it, it wouldn't have been published in its current form.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
A. The current phycological census is that seeing naked adults with opposite anatomical features can be harmful for the child.

Citation needed. And please remember to pay attention to the difference between "X is inherently harmful" and "X is harmful because we treat it as a shameful thing", as well as the fact that not all societies share the US attitude towards non-sexual nudity and yet still have children that don't suffer from serious psychological damage.

Here you go:

http://www.tcavjohn.com/pdfs/boundries.pdf

Can you please provide a source for your latter statement?

Wow. They seriously research something like that? Those people have got some pretty serious issues...
That research sounds so weird on so many levels it made me really laugh. Some of the most hilarious parts:

Approximately 47% of respondents favored intervention in cases in which a mother “often” kissed her 10-year-old son on the lips when leaving for work

(Wut? Kissing is wrong now as well? My mother still kisses me and I am 15...)

Note the lips part.

giving hugs until 8.6 years of age.

(Parents should not hug their 9 year old child anymore? That is so weird)

Depends probably on the type of hug.

A limitation of this study is that the educational level of the respondents is high compared to the general population, and all of the participants are child protective service workers

(Great way to do an unbiased research XD)

This study probably does have a bias, but considering that we do know the bias, it is easy to see where the bias is, so as such it can be interpereted that this study is too worried about these things, but that does not mean that it does not show how most professionals in this field tend to agree that too much contact might be harmful, especially in the case of seeing naked adults.

Also adding to this study and what we can interperet from it, it seems to be the only official study on the subject. and I doubt that more objective studies will ever be made, so it effectively is the only thing that we have now. It however is true that it has a bias and that some of its results seem a bit funny, but it is easy to understand when you consider that these professionals tend to follow the policy that it is better to be too safe than not safe enough. So therefore as they are the professionals on the matter, I would say that they do speak the truth, although a biased truth. Also, adding further to this discussion it might be true that it is not terribly harmful for children to see naked adults, but it might be slightly harmful for some of them, so it is better to be safe than sorry.

PS, I would be glad to read a study that shows how seeing naked adults is not harmful for children.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
Also adding to this study and what we can interperet from it, it seems to be the only official study on the subject. and I doubt that more objective studies will ever be made, so it effectively is the only thing that we have now.

Sorry, but this is a terrible argument. If the only study we have is one done with laughably poor methods then the conclusion is NOT "well, that's the best we have, so we'd better use it", it's "I guess we aren't getting any useful information from formal academic studies".

Also, adding further to this discussion it might be true that it is not terribly harmful for children to see naked adults, but it might be slightly harmful for some of them, so it is better to be safe than sorry.

Ok, so what you're saying is that children should be banned from locker rooms (a place where naked adults are often seen). Great! Now we no longer have the "think of the children" excuse to justify forcing transgendered people to act against their gender identity.